Pay television providers forced Al Jazeera to remove or block its online video content from American viewers in return for launching its new news channel on cable systems this week.

The Qatar-based news network had maintained a loyal, but small online audience for its English language news programming, using video streaming to reach American audiences that could not watch on cable or telco-TV.

For Time Warner Cable and AT&T U-verse customers, neither of which carry the new Al Jazeera America network, the move effectively cuts off viewing of the news channel’s English language programming.

The removal of Al Jazeera video content began with the termination of its live global English language stream within the United States. That was followed by blocking the network’s video clips on YouTube. The only way for viewers to watch the network now is by paying a cable, telephone, or satellite operator, assuming they are willing to carry it.

AT&T U-verse suddenly dropped predecessor Current TV just hours before Al Jazeera America was scheduled to launch in its place. The loss of five million potential viewers came as a complete surprise, culminating in a lawsuit filed against AT&T for violating its contract.

“Unfortunately, AT&T’s decision to unilaterally delete Al Jazeera America presented us with circumstances that were untenable — an affiliate that has willfully and knowingly breached its contractual obligations,” Al Jazeera America wrote in a statement issued Tuesday night. “Al Jazeera America’s strong hope is to resolve this matter quickly.”

AT&T issued its own statement stating the company “could not reach an agreement with Al Jazeera that we believed provided value for our customers and our business.”

Riyaad Minty, Al Jazeera’s head of social media has fielded complaints from loyal viewers who never got to watch the channel through their pay television provider and now can’t access the network without one. Minty tweeted the network was considering a new online offering within weeks, but it would not include Al Jazeera America.

The news channel is forced to tread carefully because of restrictive terms in its carriage agreements, designed to cut off cord cutters who refuse to pay for cable television. Most cable contracts forbid allowing cable networks to stream their programming online unless they offer it only to those who can prove they already pay an authorized provider.

Time Warner Cable is reportedly still negotiating with the news channel, which usually asks for less than five cents a month per subscriber. But no decision had been reached. Time Warner dropped predecessor network Current TV hours after news stories reported Al Gore, Jr. and other owners had sold the channel to the Qatar news organization.

Alito

Justice Samuel Alito was forced to recuse himself from nearly six dozen cases brought to the Supreme Court in the last 10 months because the Alito family owns stock in many of the corporations involved in litigation.

When Alito’s wife Martha Ann’s father died last year, the Alito family inherited a wealth of stock worth up to $1.25 million in some of America’s largest companies, including AT&T and Verizon Communications.

The Associated Press reports Alito’s tardy financial disclosure for 2012 revealed the justice’s reasons for recusal: his sudden ownership of shares in large telecom, pharmaceutical, oil and gas, and tobacco companies.

Federal law requires justices to step away from cases where there is a financial conflict of interest. Alito’s inherited stock represents just such a conflict.

In one case, however, Alito found himself holding Comcast Corp. stock after hearing arguments in a massive class action antitrust case representing two million customers the plaintiffs argued were being overcharged by an illegitimate cable monopoly.

Alito’s Comcast stock was purchased and sold last December. The Court’s 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, was announced March 27. Alito’s deciding vote fundamentally raised the bar on future lawsuits, making it much more difficult for class action cases to be brought before the courts.

The Comcast suit, in the courts since 2003, argued that cable subscribers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware were overcharged at least $875 million because of Comcast’s efforts to monopolize cable service in the Philadelphia area. Comcast amassed its dominant position by buying or swapping cable systems in the region to create a single large cable provider serving the majority of southern New Jersey, Delaware, and southeastern Pennsylvania. By 2002, the lawsuit claimed, Comcast had achieved a 77.8 percent market share.

Comcast argued the lawsuit was too complicated and its proposed method of calculating damages was faulty. The Court’s conservative justices agreed with Comcast, finding the lawsuit fell “far short of establishing that damages are capable of measurement.”

• Voting for Comcast’s position: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
• Voting against Comcast: Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

A study recently published in the Minnesota Law Review found the current Supreme Court is by far the most corporate-friendly of any court in at least 65 years, noting “the Roberts court is indeed highly pro-business — the conservatives extremely so and the liberals only moderately liberal.”

The top two most likely to vote in favor of big business among all justices seated since 1946 are Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr.

“There was a time when being ‘business-friendly’ meant giving corporations a leg-up and a level playing field because doing so creates jobs and bolsters the economy,” wrote Supreme Court reporter Jonathan Valania. “Today, ‘business-friendly’ means letting corporations socialize their costs while privatizing their profits. It means letting corporation literally write the laws that govern them. It means rolling back regulations and de-fanging oversight [….] What we are really talking about is corporatism.”

For the third time, legal action from the four largest commercial television networks to shut online streaming service Aereo has been denied.

In a 10-2 decision, with one recusal, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals denied an attempt to re-hear the case by the full appellate court.

Following disposition of this appeal on April 1, 2013, Plaintiffs-Appellants filed petitions for rehearing in banc. An active judge of the Court requested a poll on whether to rehear the cases in banc. A poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring in banc review, rehearing in banc is hereby denied.

Circuit Judge Denny Chin strongly dissented from the majority’s decision, joined by Circuit Judge Richard C. Wesley. Chin firmly took the side of the broadcasters, fearing if Aereo was permitted to continue operating, it could quickly mean the end of free over-the-air television. He believes the service exists only because of a precarious loophole:

“The majority’s decision elevates form over substance. It holds that a commercial enterprise that sells subscriptions to paying strangers for a broadcast television retransmission service is not performing those works publicly. It reaches that conclusion by accepting Aereo’s argument that its system of thousands of tiny antennas and unique copies somehow renders these transmissions “private.” In my view, however, the system is a sham, as it was designed solely to avoid the reach of the Copyright Act and to take advantage of a perceived loophole in the law….”

Just about every over-the-air network and major station in the New York City area is opposed to Aereo. Among those filing suit against its continued operation:

• Networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, PBS, Univision, and Telemundo
• Stations: WNET, WPIX, WNJU

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg IACs Diller Says Aereo Is Not a Threat to Anyone 7-10-13.flv[/flv]

Barry Diller, the force behind Aereo, tells Bloomberg News he expected to get sued when he provided viewers with an alternate way to watch television. Diller says networks and stations are simply uncomfortable with change and that Aereo poses no threat to them. (3 minutes)

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Aereo Not a Blip on Broadcasters Radar 6-27-13.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg Industries director of North American research Paul Sweeney looks at Aereo’s impact on television broadcasters and how it could eventually threaten their revenue streams. He speaks on Bloomberg Television’s “In The Loop.” (2 minutes)

Time Warner Cable’s decision to spend $11 billion to broadcast Los Angeles Lakers and Dodgers games at an estimated cost of $50-60 a year per subscriber is the subject of a class action lawsuit from fed up customers.

The plaintiffs are upset cable subscribers across Southern California will have to cover the cost of the 20-year deal with no option to opt-out of the sports channels because they are bundled into the most popular cable package.

The suit, filed this week in Superior Court alleges at least 60 percent of subscribers have no interest in the sports programming, but will collectively cover $6.6 billion of the deal and never watch a single game.

Time Warner Cable is also accused of forcing AT&T U-verse, Charter Cable, Cox Cable, DirecTV and Verizon FiOS to sign restrictive contracts that compel the companies to include the sports channels on the basic lineup.

Ironically, Time Warner Cable itself regularly complains about the increasing cost of programming and contract terms that force it to bundle expensive sports channels inside the basic tier instead of offering customers optional, added-cost sports programming packages.

Both sports teams are also named as defendants in the suit because they were aware that all subscribers would face rate increases as a result of the deal.

“TWC’s bundling results in Defendants making huge profits, much of which is extracted from unwilling consumers who have no opportunity to delete unwanted telecasts,” the complaint states.

The suit claims there is no legitimate reason Time Warner Cable and the sports teams could not have offered the new networks only to customers that wished to pay for them. The suit wants the bundling of the sports networks stopped and customers given refunds for the higher television bills that resulted.

Back in the fall of 2010, British billionaire Alki David fired a salvo against major broadcast networks in the United States and United Kingdom with the introduction of FilmOn, an online cable system offering unlimited viewing of broadcast networks from both countries for around $10 a month. By early 2011, lawsuits from various networks forced the removal of the most-watched channels, and most of the incentive for subscribers to keep paying for the service.

But David has never given up on FilmOn, and borrowing a page from Aereo’s business plan, he has brought back most of the major American networks on his relaunched platform, dubbed AereoKiller.

The company claims it is now using individual over-the-air antennas to receive broadcast stations from the New York or Washington, D.C. area, selling 24/7 streaming access for $9.99 per month or $99 a year. DVR service is sold at prices ranging from $2.95 a month to $190 a year, depending on the number of hours recorded.

Among the stations included:

New York

• WCBS (CBS)
• WNBC (NBC)
• WNYW (FOX)
• WABC (ABC)
• Bounce TV (via WWOR subchannel)
• WPIX (CW)
• WNET (PBS)/WNET-Kids
• WNJU (Telemundo)

Washington, D.C.

• WRC (NBC)
• WTTG (FOX)
• WJLA (ABC)
• WUSA (CBS)

There seem to be no geographic restrictions to prevent out of area viewers from subscribing, and FilmOn offers viewing on the desktop, as well as through iOS and Android apps.

David

FilmOn may have avoided streaming west coast stations because a California court found in favor of broadcasters who sued to shut down the operation three years earlier. But it ultimately will not keep David’s upstart service out of the courts in the east.

Last week, three major television networks and Washington, D.C. station owner Allbritton Communications filed suit against FilmOn for streaming signals from the nation’s capital without permission.

Based on the track record of earlier ventures, customers may want to avoid subscribing at the annual package price. Historically, broadcasters have fought and won temporary restraining orders that block the streaming services until the case makes its way through legal proceedings. Aereo, which streams New York area television stations exclusively to New York City customers has proven the exception and continues to run, at least for now.

Broadcasters consider stopping “dime-sized” antenna farm streaming services like Aereo and AereoKiller a top priority, because networks and local stations earn lucrative retransmission consent rights fees from cable, satellite, and telco-TV providers used by at least 90 percent of the viewing audience. Should these alternative technologies be found legal and not in violation of copyright, pay television providers could potentially license and incorporate similar technology into their respective set-top boxes and avoid paying license fees to station and network owners.

[flv width=”640″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/FilmOn Introduction 5-13.mp4[/flv]

FilmOn’s introductory promotional video features some boastful claims from founder Alki David that are perhaps more wishful thinking than reality, but PlayOn has persisted despite broadcaster lawsuits by creating and distributing original live and recorded programming.  (8 minutes)